Hall of Fame Debate - Andy Pettitte

This past week, Andy Pettitte announced his retirement ending a long, consistent, and winning career. He played 16 seasons mostly with the Yankees as well as three years with the Houston Astros. Pettitte is among the pitchers that began their careers as the four man rotation was transitioning to a five man rotation. With that in mind, his 240 wins adjusted to the transition, means he must at least be considered among Hall of Fame chatter. Throughout his career, Pettitte probably wouldn't be considered a dominating pitcher like some of his contemporaries. He wasn't a power pitcher that compiled lots of strikeouts (although he placed in the top 10 a few seasons). He also doesn't possess a multitude of Cy Young Awards. Perhaps that's why he doesn't typically pass the sniff test when considering HOF legitimacy. However, he did offer consistency, cool under fire, and a winning spirit. He was in double digit wins in every season except one, and 8 times he had 15 or more. He has the obligatory multiple twenty win seasons as well. Further, his .635 winning percentage is much higher than several pitchers already in the Hall of Fame. Finally, he was a horse for the Yankees and Astos, amassing 10 seasons of more than 200 innings pitched.



The Yankees won their first World Series of the late 90s dynasty in Pettitte's 2nd season. Pettitte would go on to win 5 World Series rings with the Yankees, along side making the fall classic an additional 3 times in his career. Postseason numbers are another big reason for his Cooperstown case to be made. He has the most wins in postseason history with 19 to go along with a .655 winning percentage.



Detractors may point out the lack of Cy Young awards in his career. However, Pettitte was overshadowed by his power-pitching comtemporaries such as Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, and Roger Clemens. Naysayers may also point out that his win total is inflated because of the Yankees' dominance of the late 90s and early part of last decade. Yet, he was the one constant among the revolving door rotations the Yankees threw out there every year. The biggest mark agains Pettitte, the hardest to overlook, and the hardest to defend involves his admission and entanglement with performance enhancing drugs. He admitted and showed remorse, seemingly in earnest, to using Human Growth Hormone to recover from injuries faster. He claimed his usage was not to gain a competitive advantage. Indeed, his consistency throughout his career never changed, and nothing clearly points to a spot in time where his numbers jumped or bacame something they had never been before. His strong friendship with Roger Clemens and training with Brian McNamee further implicate him of wrongdoing regarding PEDs. The fact that he was among the first to get out in front of the accusations, show remorse, and seek forgiveness shows the forgiving nature of society when people make mistakes. Were it not for Clemens pulling him back in with his trial and continued denials of all allegations, many people may have forgotten about Pettitte's involvement. If not for the admission of HGH usage, and subsequent guilt by association, Pettitte may well have stood a strong chance of making it to Cooperstown. Because his numbers are seen as "on the fence" and also his transgressions, he probably won't make the cut.

9 comments:

  1. Steroids or not, my vote would be nay. I'm not sure if he was ever the ace on his own team so it would be tough for me to vote him into the Hall of Greatness. With the exception of a couple of seasons, his numbers were average - if not for all of those postseason wins, we wouldn't even be bringing his name up and the postseason games were a result of his team more than anything else. Don't get me wrong, he has made a long career of pitching in the postseason and that usually doesn't happen (pitchers are supposed to crack under that pressure) but I don't think he deserves enshrinement based on that alone. Maybe if he had a WS MVP (or two) but he doesn't. He was just there... consistent, yes, great, I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  2. i agree. plus he had a lifetime ere in the high 3's near 4. great teams good run support. solid pitcher no hall of famer!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here is the poster child for very good but not great. I think they probably would have put him in eventually until the steroids showed up, but being a Yankee he will still get in(can't have too many Yankees in the HOF). The interesting thing will be who makes it in Shilling or Pettite.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't know if Schilling gets in either.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Schilling gets in. His win total is clearly subpar, but 3000 K's, ~70 WAR and ridiculous postseason success will push him over the edge. Other nice but meaningless stats: best K/BB ratio in the modern era, three 300 K seasons, three second-places in Cy voting.

    Also check his monitor score (a test of HOF likeliness) of 171. The highest score of a modern-era non-roids pitcher who isn't a lock is Lee Smith at 135.

    Pettitte's score is 123. Good, but Jim Kaat had 130 and didn't come close, and Blyleven had 120 and took 14 ballots. Andy will either just make it or just miss.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Schilling gets in mainly because of those K's and postseason dominance... 2.23 career postseason ERA. He also maintained a tidy regular season ERA of 3.46 over 20 seasons and has never been linked to roids. He's a baseball suck up and the "bloody sock" carries historical significance so yes, Schilling gets in.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wait a second, in one breath you're discrediting Pettitte's postseason success and in the next talking up Schilling's?
    I think neither make it in.
    Both had strong post season success, but that's not enough to save their very good, but not great regular season achievments.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's the 'peak performance' versus 'career length' debate... But in this case, we are talking about postseason career. Schilling had a shorter yet more dominant postseason career compared to Pettitte who was good (not great) with a larger sample (a longer postseason career). I lean towards peak over length of career... Every case is different and should be evaluated individually but I tend to look for greatness.

    ReplyDelete

Copyright © 2012 FOR BASEBALL JUNKIES.